SMT.HASINA BEGUM @ KHATOON Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in this Writ Petition is with regard to entitlement of the petitioner to receive family pension. The petitioner is a widow. Her husband late Syed Musraf Ali was working as a Sepoy in 120 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army) from 21st June, 1956 till 20th June, 1971. He was assigned No.10256910. After serving the Army for fifteen years he was disengaged. Thereafter he approached the authorities for grant of pension, but no steps were taken by the latter. His family passed their days through stringent financial difficulties. Unfortunately due to lack of food and medical care he died on 19th May, 1975 leaving behind the petitioner as his widow and five minor children. Thereafter the petitioner once again approached the authorities for grant of pension of her deceased husband and family pension to her. All her requests having been in vain, she had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.4043 of 2007. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 23rd July, 2007. This Court had directed the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), opposite party No.3, to call for the service records of the husband of the petitioner, examine the same and pass a reasoned order with regard to entitlement of the deceased Sepoy to pension and family pension to the petitioner. In consonance with that direction, it is averred, opposite party No.2 passed an order on 20th October, 2007 (Annexure -4) stating therein that neither the husband of the petitioner nor the petitioner was entitled to pension/family pension. The said order is assailed in this Writ Petition on the ground that the deceased husband of the petitioner having reserved in the Territorial Army for a period of fifteen years, was entitled to receive service pension and after him the petitioner is entitled to family pension in consonance with the prevailing rules, but then the authorities acted illegally and with material irregularity in denying the same. 3. After receiving notice, cause has been shown by the opposite parties. The facts that the husband of the petitioner had joined the Territorial Army on 21st June, 1956 and had been discharged on 20th June, 1971 are admitted. It is also admitted that he had been discharged from Army Service after serving for fifteen years. Referring to Para -132 of the Pension Regulations, 1961, it is averred that minimum fifteen years embodied service is mandatory for earning pension. This embodied period with break in service is not counted as qualifying service for pension. According to the opposite parties, the deceased husband of the petitioner had completed fifteen years of service including dis -embodied period and hence he had not been granted service pension on his discharge from Army Service. They have further averred that family pension is only granted to those widows whose husbands were in receipt of service pension. The deceased husband of the petitioner having not been granted service pension, the question of family pension to the petitioner does not arise. 4. A rejoinder to the counter -affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. Referring to the Para -132 of the Pension Regulations of 1961 it is submitted that the minimum qualifying service for earning service pension is fifteen years and not fifteen years of embodied service as stated by the opposite parties. Said Para -132 reads as follows : -